So this "Talibanization" is really a policy of political indoctrination.

I agree that the left is in too many cases intolerant. In the runoff for the last election for mayor in San Francisco, Gavin Newsom vs. Matt Gonzalez, the Gonzalez supporters were very intolerent of the opposition. You see, Gavin Newsom belongs to a right-wing party known as the Democrats (San Francisco is a two-party town : Democrats and Greens). One of facts used to discredit Newsom was the fact that he gave $200 dollars to the Republican party. When I discussed Newsom (specifically that he in much more in favor of improving education than Gonzalez) with some of my peers, one said "But he supports corporations" as if that automatically disqualifies him, and another came pretty close to verbally assaulting me for even daring to say that Newsom was a better candidate. Never mind the fact that Newsom had a much more clearly defined agenda, never mind the fact that he is a better orator, never mind the fact that about the only thing in favor of Gonzalez was that he claimed to be more extreme than Newsom. I even saw a sign equating "George + Arnold + Gavin = 1 Happy Mom" (this was in a show mocking the right-wing).

Gavin Newsom was the man who started gay marriages in San Francisco merely months after he was accused (by some not-so-bright people I know, literally) of being in league with George Bush.

Of course, a great deal of the people who loudly proclaim to be far-left in San Francisco are really what I once overheard someone calling the "progressive conservatives". An example of progressive conservatism : I saw a bumper sticker saying "How much blood for oil". This bumper sticker was on an SUV.

Paul wrote:You seem to be asserting that the "Christian right' denigrates even the milder forms of tolerance, e.g., 'reasonable disagreement'. In fine, that such Christians will not respect the freedom of another to live as (s)he sees fit. Am I understanding you on this point?

In your post you defined carefully what you meant by the word "tolerance," but lately I have heard a number of voices on the right condemning "tolerance," without making any careful distinctions at all.

The line of thinking seems to be that there are quite a few folks out there (imaginary people, IMHO) who think that tolerance = anything goes = utter amorality, so presumably we are to understand that a condemnation of "tolerance" is a condemnation of amorality or moral indifference.

I'm sorry, I am not going to buy into this. This word must not be redefined. That is not what tolerance means. It is possible to be a principled, upright person and also be a "tolerant" person.

In this case, I think that right-wing people are adopting the worst tactics of gender feminists and other supposedly liberal groups, in that they are redefining terms out from under us, and making a reasoned dialogue impossible.

Paul wrote:"Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions." - G.K. Chesterton

This quote contradicts your own definition of tolerance, doesn't it? Do you agree with Chesterton, or not? Is Chesterton right? I believe he is wrong.

Paul wrote:I do take exception to those who accuse the "Christian right" of intolerance but fail to see the plank in their own eyes.

I completely agree with you here. I also object to the weird "political correctness" on campuses. Much of it is overtly anti-democratic in spirit. Unfortunately, it seems that some conservative groups are aping the techniques of liberals -- portraying themselves as an opporessed minority, which has to wage some kind of insurrection against a cruel tyrant. It is silly when liberals do this and it's silly when conservatives do it, too.

(Talibanization is way too strong a term to use, though. It's really too much of an exaggeration.)

Paul wrote:Why are those who are so willing to bestow legitimacy on all manner of thought and belief so quick to attack religion?

Sometimes religious people attack first, and the targets feel forced to respond in some way. What would you do, if somone called you evil? Wouldn't you respond?

Bert wrote:I was just trying to get you to explain this victimhood "statistic."

The Germans viewed themselves as vicitms of (imagined) Jewish domination. The invasion of Poland was portrayed to the German people as a defense against Polish aggression -- which sounds quite silly, but this is how it was presented to the people.

Soviet aggression in Eastern Europe was portrayed as a defensive stance, against aggression by Western powers. The Soviets routinely referred to all Western powers as facsist.

The entire rationale of communism was that the proletarians were victims of the ruling classes, and needed to protect themselves by force.

Most people are not violent, but can be provoked into violence if they feel sufficiently threatened. Sometimes threats are real, so this instinct is not always harmful. However, people can be also provoked to violence if they are convinced of an imaginary threat. Unscrupulous leaders (political, religious, whatever) can increase their own power by cultivating a state of seige mentality. It's been done many times in the past.

I find it worrisome when any group, anywhere on the political spectrum, appears to be cultivating this mentality about itself. It is almost never warranted. The political rhetoric in the US is often far more drastic than it needs to be. Good leaders should not exploit people's base instincts, instead they should encourage people to rise above them.

Democritus, you made some very good points, especially about the exploitation of victim status in the nascent stages of several 20th century tyrannies.

I'm kinda wiped out, but let me try to say a few things in response.

1. I'd still like to hear from you some concrete examples of these voices on the right.

2. I threw the Chesterton thing in mostly to annoy people. Given my definition of tolerance, I think I disagree with him. However, I sense that by this remark he may have meant something more like: the man for whom tolerance is the only virtue is a man without convictions. As some of our other interlocutors have said, this is an apt description of our age.

3. I readily admit that there are those on, yes, the "Christian right", who are too quick to condemn the behavior of others. But they have no monopoly on this very human flaw. It is a commonplace of human character that we are often morbidly obsessed with "the other".

And before I forget, Ms. GlottalGreekGeek, you have my sincere respect for the Reason you bring to the table. In fact, I've been meaning for some time to to tell you more about my alma mater. It might be just your cup of tea. I urge you to check it out.

[My apologies to Ibn Taymiyyah for veering off topic but I could not resist.]

Now, down to business...

[face=SPIonic]GEIA SOU, PAULE. [/face]

Paul wrote:What do these people have in common:

Antonin ScaliaAnne CoulterBill KristolPat BuchananDavid Horowitz

Yes they are all conservatives...

I didn't know Ann Coulter was a consevative. Is he/she (???) not the one who said a few years ago "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity"? Hmm...sounds kinda of fascist, don't you think?

"Nice" conservative this Antonin Scalia. Is he not the one..."Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached."? Imagine that?! Anyway, you are probably referring to the NYU incindent where he was asked by a law student of the same univerisity: "Justice Scalia, do you sodomize your wife?"...and that's when all hell broke loose. Pretty fair question if you ask me. If SCJ Scalia wants to pass legal judgment on the sexual practices of consenting adults, then it's fair game for him to be asked about his wife's poofter!

I don't know much about Bill Kristol except that he once got a pie in the face. (I do hope it was low in fat.) Pat Buchanan is another story, but let's leave him for now. As for David Horowitz, is he Irish? If David Horowitz is Irish, then Lawrence Summers must be Irish, as well.

Please excuse my sarcasm. But I do believe you could have selected far better conservative candidates to make your point.

[face=SPIonic]me polu/ ekti/mhsh,
Panagiw/thj[/face]

Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just.---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

PeterD wrote:"Nice" conservative this Antonin Scalia. Is he not the one..."Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached."?

Actually, he did not say it. That misquote has been floating around for a long time. It is usually attributed to his concurring opinion in Herrera v. Collins, 506 US 390 (1993). Of course, if you actually read what he wrote, you'll see quite the opposite story. He acknowledges that the US Constitution is not, and cannot be, perfect; nor can it remedy all wrongs, which is why, as he states in the opinion, we have executive pardons in the first place.

I didn't know Ann Coulter was a consevative. Is he/she (???) not the one who said a few years ago "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity"? Hmm...sounds kinda of fascist, don't you think?

"Nice" conservative this Antonin Scalia. Is he not the one..."Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached."? Imagine that?! Anyway, you are probably referring to the NYU incindent where he was asked by a law student of the same univerisity: "Justice Scalia, do you sodomize your wife?"...and that's when all hell broke loose. Pretty fair question if you ask me. If SCJ Scalia wants to pass legal judgment on the sexual practices of consenting adults, then it's fair game for him to be asked about his wife's poofter!

I don't know much about Bill Kristol except that he once got a pie in the face. (I do hope it was low in fat.) Pat Buchanan is another story, but let's leave him for now. As for David Horowitz, is he Irish? If David Horowitz is Irish, then Lawrence Summers must be Irish, as well.

Please excuse my sarcasm. But I do believe you could have selected far better conservative candidates to make your point.Panagiw/thj[/face]

Hey there Peter!

Good to hear from you again.

Look, my point is simple: many on the left are intolerant of even hearing ideas they disagree with. They champion free speech only when they agree with its intent.

Yet all of us, liberals and conservatives alike, will benefit from civilized political discourse.

And what is your point? That 'mean' conservatives deserve what they get?

Liberal tolerance is grounded in relativism, the view that no one point of view on moral and religious knowledge is objectively correct for every person in every time and place. This notion, as understood and embraced in popular culture, feeds on the fact of pluralism, the reality of a plurality of different and contrary opinions on religious and moral matters. Against this backdrop, many in our culture conclude that one cannot say that one’s view on religious and moral matters is better than anyone else’s view. They assert that it is a mistake to claim that one’s religious beliefs are exclusively correct and that believers in other faiths, no matter how sincere or devoted, hold false beliefs. Thus, religious inclusivism is the correct position to hold.

This is wrong in so many ways, I don't know where to begin. Religious tolerance is part of the modern Christian tradition. It is certainly not "grounded in relativism." This paragraph is full of straw-man aguments. Silly, silly.

This anti-Christian standard for right and wrong has permeated teacher's colleges, educational laboratories, and curricula for decades. It has torn down God's boundaries, and allowed immorality and deception to flood our land. No wonder children are adrift in a tumultuous current of inner conflict and moral confusion.

Tolerance did all of that? Goodness me! These people seem to think that nobody ever sinned, before liberals came along. Don't they have history books?

The concept of religious tolerance, that Christians in political authority should permit persons of differing faith to practice their own religions, has risen and fallen many times in history. At times, church leaders have considered tolerance itself to be a heresy. The lack of religious tolerance caused many religious groups to migrate (Molokans, Quakers, Mennonites, and others). Modern Christianity appears, for the most part, to have adopted a position of tolerance. There are, however, exceptions such as American Christian Reconstructionism which, according to some observers, could pave the way for the persecution of dissenting faiths. This is related to the issues of ecumenism and religious pluralism.

PeterD wrote:"Nice" conservative this Antonin Scalia. Is he not the one..."Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached."?

Actually, he did not say it. That misquote has been floating around for a long time. It is usually attributed to his concurring opinion in Herrera v. Collins, 506 US 390 (1993). Of course, if you actually read what he wrote, you'll see quite the opposite story. He acknowledges that the US Constitution is not, and cannot be, perfect; nor can it remedy all wrongs, which is why, as he states in the opinion, we have executive pardons in the first place.

First, Scalia has never -- I repeat -- never denied the above quote.

Second, it is true that I have not read in its entirety Scalia's opinion in the Herrera matter. However, I do know for a FACT that Leonel Torres Herrera was executed in Texas in 1993 AFTER the US Supreme Court, with yours truly --Scalia-- on the bench, refused to hear new, exonerating evidence. Murderous decision, don't you think?

Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just.---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

PeterD wrote:First, Scalia has never -- I repeat -- never denied the above quote.

Second, it is true that I have not read in its entirety Scalia's opinion in the Herrera matter. However, I do know for a FACT that Leonel Torres Herrera was executed in Texas in 1993 AFTER the US Supreme Court, with yours truly --Scalia-- on the bench, refused to hear new, exonerating evidence. Murderous decision, don't you think?

I don't want to hijack this thread, and since I oppose the death penalty in all cases, I find myself in awkward position. Nevertheless, I do not agree with the mentality that it is ok to fabricate facts (e.g. pull a Dan Rather) to try to prove one's point, so I feel I must again respond.

I certainly believe you when you say you have not read the opinion (to which I had linked in my previous post), for if you did you would have also encountered Justice O'Connor's concurring opinion:

JUSTICE O'CONNOR wrote:The record overwhelmingly demonstrates that petitioner deliberately shot and killed Officers Rucker and Carrisalez the night of September 29, 1981; petitioner's new evidence is bereft of credibility. Indeed, despite its stinging criticism of the Court's decision, not even the dissent expresses a belief that petitioner might possibly be actually innocent.

So, indeed, the court, Scalia and all, did hear his evidence. Was it wrong to execute him, absolutely -- but let's be honest, the reason has nothing to do with either the judicial process or his new "evidence."

Personally, I think misquotes, half-truths and statements not supported by actual facts do far more harm than good when one is trying to make a persuasive argument.

edonnelly wrote:Nevertheless, I do not agree with the mentality that it is ok to fabricate facts (e.g. pull a Dan Rather) to try to prove one's point, so I feel I must again respond.

Fair enough, but then please don't call this activity "pulling a Dan Rather." It's really not fair. Dan Rather did not fabricate any facts. He eventually he admitted he was mistaken about the documents. The forger of the documents was never identified. That kind of forgery is a felony, but no one has ever been charged with the forgery.

"Pulling a Dan Rather" should mean "stupidly allowing yourself to be manipulated by someone whose real purpose is to discredit you and your story."

Origins: Despite the derisive references that continue even today, Al Gore did not claim he "invented" the Internet, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way. The "Al Gore said he 'invented' the Internet" put-downs were misleading, out-of-context distortions of something he said during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's "Late Edition" program on 9 March 1999. When asked to describe what distinguished him from his challenger for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey, Gore replied (in part):

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

...Gore was popularizing the term "information superhighway" in the early 1990s ... when few people outside academia or the computer/defense industries had heard of the Internet, and he sponsored the 1988 National High-Performance Computer Act (which established a national computing plan and helped link universities and libraries via a shared network) and cosponsored the Information Infrastructure and Technology Act of 1992 (which opened the Internet to commercial traffic).

In May 2005, the organizers of the Webby Awards for online achievements honored Al Gore with a lifetime achievement award for three decades of contributions to the Internet. "He is indeed due some thanks and consideration for his early contributions," said Vint Cerf.

We have strayed far from the original topic. We should relabel it, "Can God create disinformation so convincing that even He cannot refute it?"

edonnelly wrote:Nevertheless, I do not agree with the mentality that it is ok to fabricate facts (e.g. pull a Dan Rather) to try to prove one's point, so I feel I must again respond.

Do not accuse me of fabricating facts. As I stated before, Scalia has never -- [face=SPIonic] to\ katalabai/neij;[/face] -- denied making that hideous statement. Any normal individual accused of saying or doing something he/she did not say or do (especially hideous) would vehemently deny it! A simple "I never said it" would suffice.

I certainly believe you when you say you have not read the opinion (to which I had linked in my previous post), for if you did you would have also encountered Justice O'Connor's concurring opinion:

JUSTICE O'CONNOR wrote:The record overwhelmingly demonstrates that petitioner deliberately shot and killed Officers Rucker and Carrisalez the night of September 29, 1981; petitioner's new evidence is bereft of credibility. Indeed, despite its stinging criticism of the Court's decision, not even the dissent expresses a belief that petitioner might possibly be actually innocent.

So, indeed, the court, Scalia and all, did hear his evidence. Was it wrong to execute him, absolutely -- but let's be honest, the reason has nothing to do with either the judicial process or his new "evidence."

[face=SPIonic]PWPW... EIPE O GAIDAROS TON PETEINO KEFALA[/face]

...And if you had bothered to read Justice Blackmun's dissent (joined by Justices Stevens and Souter):

"We are being asked to decide whether the Constitution forbids the execution of a person who has been validly convicted and sentenced, but who, nonetheless can prove his innocence with newly discovered evidence."

BTW, he characterized the Court's decision as "perilously close to simple murder."

Personally, I think misquotes, half-truths and statements not supported by actual facts do far more harm than good when one is trying to make a persuasive argument.

...and I would add: nor should one make false accusations!

Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just.---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

Democritus wrote:Al Gore never said he invented the internet, either. So, as part of your crusade to set the facts straight, please remember to defend poor old Al, too.

I don't feel too bad for "poor old Al," but he did take an unjustified beating on that, I'll grant you. (As a side, I'll add that had he simply won his home state of Tennessee he would have become President. Tennessee, by the way, was won by Clinton both times he ran, has a Deomocrat for a Governor, a Democratic majority in its House, and, although it has a Republic majority in its Senate this year for the first time in 140 years, that body even elected a Democrat to be its leader,)

PeterD wrote:Do not accuse me of fabricating facts.

I accuse you of misquoting and I stand by that statement, unless you have any true evidence that he actually said it.

PeterD wrote:Any normal individual accused of saying or doing something he/she did not say or do (especially hideous) would vehemently deny it! A simple "I never said it" would suffice.

What dribble is this? Because he doesn't hunt down everything said about him by less-than-legitimate news sources and internet propaganda houses, you conclude your statement is somehow justified? You should be ashamed of even saying this.

PeterD wrote:...And if you had bothered to read Justice Blackmun's dissent (joined by Justices Stevens and Souter):

"We are being asked to decide whether the Constitution forbids the execution of a person who has been validly convicted and sentenced, but who, nonetheless can prove his innocence with newly discovered evidence."

Yes, because they considered arguendo that such evidence existed, though in this case it clearly did not. As Scalia points out, the more proper mechanism for such evidence is executive pardon. Surely one could debate whether or not it was the correct decision and why, but none of this would have anything to do with your absurd statement about the Court "refusing" to hear "new, exonerating evidence."

PeterD wrote:...and I would add: nor should one make false accusations!

Indeed, and I'm glad I did not. One should also not echo nonsense one reads elsewhere without fully understanding it.

PeterD wrote:Any normal individual accused of saying or doing something he/she did not say or do (especially hideous) would vehemently deny it! A simple "I never said it" would suffice.

What dribble is this? Because he doesn't hunt down everything said about him by less-than-legitimate news sources and internet propaganda houses, you conclude your statement is somehow justified? You should be ashamed of even saying this.

Thank you for this, edonnelly.

Peter, not only is your argument nonsense, it's deceptive: tell us how your opinion of Scalia would differ had he denied saying this?

I accuse you of misquoting and I stand by that statement, unless you have any true evidence that he actually said it.

I believe he said it. Partly because he has never denied it and partly because it fits his character of an awful human being. Btw, where is your 'true' evidence that he never said it, or did a little birdie confide it to you?

edonnelly wrote:

PeterD wrote:Any normal individual accused of saying or doing something he/she did not say or do (especially hideous) would vehemently deny it! A simple "I never said it" would suffice.

What dribble is this? Because he doesn't hunt down everything said about him by less-than-legitimate news sources and internet propaganda houses, you conclude your statement is somehow justified? You should be ashamed of even saying this.

Dribble is what I'm reading from you.

When Juanita Broaddrick had accused President Clinton of raping her and no 'legitimate' news sources seriously investigated the accusation, Clinton refused to comment hoping his silence -- and rather successfully -- would make the allegation go away. When Kitty Kelly alleged in her biography of the Bush clan that GWB was (is?) a cokehead, the Whitehouse had neither a comment nor a denial to make hoping that shear silence on the matter would make people believe the allegation was not true. Scalia's silence in my opinion is defeaning.

Shame on you for being so gullible. Is it any wonder that your country is up sh-t creak without a paddle?!

edonelly wrote:

PeterD wrote:...And if you had bothered to read Justice Blackmun's dissent (joined by Justices Stevens and Souter):

"We are being asked to decide whether the Constitution forbids the execution of a person who has been validly convicted and sentenced, but who, nonetheless can prove his innocence with newly discovered evidence."

Yes, because they considered arguendo that such evidence existed, though in this case it clearly did not. As Scalia points out, the more proper mechanism for such evidence is executive pardon. Surely one could debate whether or not it was the correct decision and why, but none of this would have anything to do with your absurd statement about the Court "refusing" to hear "new, exonerating evidence."

Executive pardon? (That's not me laughing; it's probably the ghost of the late Herrera. )

edonelly wrote:

PeterD wrote:...and I would add: nor should one make false accusations!

Indeed, and I'm glad I did not. One should also not echo nonsense one reads elsewhere without fully understanding it.

Hush, little boy.Why get so rash?We do not need to clash.

Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just.---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

Paul wrote:Peter, not only is your argument nonsense, it's deceptive: tell us how your opinion of Scalia would differ had he denied saying this?

Hi, Paul.

If he had denied saying it, I would simply not have used that quote. It's not like he's dead and he can't defend himself. I would have used this one instead:

"There is no basis in text, tradition, or even contemporary practice for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction."Herrera v. Collins 506 U.S. 390 (1993)

(You feel better now, edonnelly? And as for pulling a Dan Rather, the memo was a side issue. It was immaterial to the story. His report included damaging direct testimony. The accusation that GB got GWB out of the Vietnam was/is valid. Dan Rather simply didn't have the balls to stay with the story.)

Wow! And I thought the Constitution was all about civil liberities.

My opinion of Scalia is that of a scaremongering homophobe with not the slightest notion of what the U.S. Constitution is all about. He should not be a judge, let alone a SCJ.

Anyway, my original post was about your selection of "conservatives." And, of course, society does benefit from civilized political discourse. But when crooks, liars, hypocrites, and war profiteers take to the podium, a decent, civilized society will not only shout them down but will also throw a few pies and eggs their way. I have never heard of anyone ever losing life or limb in such a case. Have you?

take care,

Peter

p.s. (military music playing) For those Americans wishing to support Halliburton's bottom line: Enlist now in the U.S. Army. They can sure use a few extra limbs in Iraq. www.goarmy.com

p.p.s. Think Greek!

Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just.---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

PeterD wrote:If he had denied saying it, I would simply not have used that quote. It's not like he's dead and he can't defend himself. I would have used this one instead:

"There is no basis in text, tradition, or even contemporary practice for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction."Herrera v. Collins 506 U.S. 390 (1993)

If we're going to play "quote the decision", then how about a little context, just by way of fairness? Please pay special attention to the use of the word 'constitution' and its variants.

From Justice O'Connor:

...the execution of a legally and factually innocent person would be a constitutionally intolerable event. Dispositive to this case, however, is an equally fundamental fact: Petitioner is not innocent, in any sense of the word.

As the Court explains, ante, at 7-8, petitioner is not innocent in the eyes of the law because, in our system of justice, "the trial is the paramount event for determining the guilt or innocence of the defendant." Ante, at 25. Accord, post, at 13 (dissenting opinion). In petitioner'scase, that paramount event occurred 10 years ago. He was tried before a jury of his peers, with the full panoply of protections that our Constitution affords criminal defendants. At the conclusion of that trial, the jury found petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Petitioner therefore does not appear before us as an innocent man on the verge of execution. He is instead a legally guilty one who, refusing to accept the jury's verdict, demands a hearing in which to have his culpability determined once again. Ante, at 8 (opinion of the Court).

Consequently, the issue before us is not whether a State can execute the innocent. It is, as the Court notes, whether a fairly convicted and therefore legally guilty person is constitutionally entitled to yet another judicial proceeding in which to adjudicate his guilt anew, 10 years after conviction, notwithstanding his failure to demonstrate that constitutional error infected his trial.

From Chief Justice Rehnquist:

Claims of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence have never been held to state a ground for federal habeas relief absent an independent constitutional violation occurring in the underlying state criminal proceeding. Chief Justice Warren made this clear in Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 317 (1963) (emphasis added):

"Where newly discovered evidence is alleged in a habeas application, evidence which could notreasonably have been presented to the state trier of facts, the federal court must grant an evidentiary hearing. Of course, such evidence must bear upon the constitutionality of the applicant's detention; the existence merely of newly discovered evidence relevant to the guilt of a state prisoner is not a ground for relief on federal habeas corpus."

This rule is grounded in the principle that federal habeas courts sit to ensure that individuals are not imprisoned in violation of the Constitution--not to correct errors of fact. See, e. g., Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86, 87-88 (1923) (Holmes, J.) ("[W]hat we have to deal with [on habeas review] is not the petitioners' innocence or guilt but solely the question whether their constitutional rights have been preserved"); Hyde v. Shine, 199 U.S. 62, 84 (1905) ("[I]t is well settled that upon habeas corpus the court will not weigh the evidence") (emphasis in original).

And now let us hear, this time more fully, what Scalia said....

From Justice Scalia:

We granted certiorari on the question whether it violates due process or constitutes cruel and unusual punishment for a State to execute a person who, having been convicted of murder after a full and fair trial, later alleges that newly discovered evidence shows him to be "actually innocent." I would have preferred to decide that question, particularly since, as the Court's discussion shows, it is perfectly clear what the answer is: There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough), for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction. In saying that such a right exists, the dissenters apply nothing but their personal opinions to invalidate the rules of more than two thirds of the States, and a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure for which this Court itself is responsible. If the system that has been in place for 200 years (and remains widely approved) "shocks" the dissenters' consciences, post, at 1, perhaps they should doubt the calibration of their consciences, or, better still, the usefulness of "conscience shocking" as a legal test.

If you're paying attention Peter, then you'll see that Scalia's opinion agrees completely with that of Chief Justice Earl Warren. Now, if you know as much about The Supremes as you claim to know about our Constitution, then you know that Warren was no friend of conservatives. Yet both he and Scalia invoke the same principle. Hmm...whatever could that mean?

PeterD wrote:Wow! And I thought the Constitution was all about civil liberities.

Wow! You're wrong! The Constitution is about much more than discovering new rights and elevating new victims whenever you happen to hate the current administration

PeterD wrote:But when crooks, liars, hypocrites, and war profiteers take to the podium, a decent, civilized society will not only shout them down but will also throw a few pies and eggs their way. I have never heard of anyone ever losing life or limb in such a case. Have you?

Wrong again! I see that textkit's great democrat is unfamiliar with "I will defend to the death your right to say it...". Thanks for a fine illustration of something I suggested in an earlier post: it's the left that would suppress free speech; it's the left that is incapable of even hearing ideas they disagree with.

PeterD wrote:p.s. (military music playing) For those Americans wishing to support Halliburton's bottom line: Enlist now in the U.S. Army. They can sure use a few extra limbs in Iraq. www.goarmy.com

Let's see....what did American blood accomplish: a monstrous dictator removed, scores of millions freed, and a representative democracy emerging, and all you can do is talk mockingly about Halliburton?

I agree with the individual who posted the--colors are waves--response.

Question#2: Yes He can create a rock which He cannot lift. He's just not that stupid.

Tracy

Ibn Taymiyyah wrote:Question: Can God hear colors?Answer: Invalid question, colors are not meant to be heard.

Similarly: Impossibilities are not meant to be achieved.

Question: Can God create a rock which He cannot lift?Answer: Invalid question, because it is impossible for there to exist a rock which God cannot lift, God's ability is limitless.Impossibilities are not meant to be achieved ... just like colors are not meant to be heard.

To say that God cannot create anything because he cannot create "a rock which he cannot lift" is erroneous. Before a person makes such an assertion, they must fully understand the implications of omnipotence. You cannot say that God is not omnipotent merely because he cannot exceed the infinite bounds of omnipotence. A rock which cannot be lifted by God is not possible because it would exist in contradiction to the concept of omnipotence. God cannot create such a rock because it violates the very essence of His Being, not because he is lacking in power. A rock which God cannot lift cannot be considered an object within the parameters of the physical or spiritual realm because it is by definition in opposition to truth. God could create anything, but the very ambiguous concept of an unliftable rock cannot be considered to be anything. It is like asking if God can find the square root of a negative number. Such a number cannot exist because it defies mathematical law. A rock which cannot be lifted by God defies omnipotence by definitition; hence, it defies the definition of God's existence thus invalidating the feasibility of such a creation even though God has the ability to create a rock which could theoretically never be contained within the boundaries of a physical universe.

I am surprised that there is so much discussion on this thread. On a purely logical level, the issue is really quite simple.

vir litterarum wrote:A rock which cannot be lifted by God is not possible

Yes, but not possible for whom? For God? Aren't all things possible for God?

There is no way out of this logical conundrum. We can try to dance around it, but it's still there. The whole idea of "omnipotence" inevitably leads to logical contradictions which cannot be avoided.

I am not suggesting that anyone stop believing in the omnipotence of God. What I am saying is, that this belief defies simple logic.

But this is no challenge, is it? Is faith based on reason, or on something else? If you believe in the omnipotence of God as an article of faith, then why do you need logic? Does it really matter so much that the idea defies logic? Don't large parts of theology defy logic?

Regardless of our religious beliefs, we should not lose sight of what is logically consistent versus what is not logically consistent. "Omnipotence" poses real challenges. Whether these inconsistencies cause you to lose your faith in an omnipotent God is another question altogether.

vir litterarum wrote:A rock which cannot be lifted by God is not possible

Yes, but not possible for whom? For God? Aren't all things possible for God?

There is no way out of this logical conundrum. We can try to dance around it, but it's still there. The whole idea of "omnipotence" inevitably leads to logical contradictions which cannot be avoided.

I think the real limitation is in the language. Why not just ask "Can God create something which cannot be created?" If you define omnipotence as the ability to do even the impossible, then, yes, you will suffer a conundrum. But I would argue that "omnipotence" is merely an imperfect word used to describe a concept we do not fully understand.

You are correct that omnipotence is the power to do all things, but can defying the very definition of omnipotence really be considered a plausible action. You cannot consider the action of creating an object which would violate the very definition of the essence of God's being as an actual concept. Another way to phrase such a query is can God create an object which would exist in contradiction to the very definition of the God. Can God create an object which exceeds the boundaries of omnipotence by exercising omnipotence? This question is unanswerable because it is a paradox which cannot be considered to exist within the boundaries of "all things." Someone may retort that all things includes anything, but the question, because it contradicts itself and logic, cannot be considered to be a question of actual omnipotence, for omnipotence does not necessitate that a being which is omnipotent can defy common sense. Let us ask if God can jump and fall in spot at one time? This question cannot be answered not because God is not all powerful but because it defies logic. Humans understand intrinsically that one body, if it is projected upwards, cannot be falling simultaneously. God gave men the ability to reason for a reason: To innately understand and obviate such an illogical dispute to the concept of God. Furthermore, Why would God ever need to lift a rock? For someone to lift something, gravity is required for someone to apply a lifting force against. If God were even to create an infinitely large rock, he would not need to lift it because there is no gravity in space and I doubt that there is any gravity in heaven or the spiritual realm.

It is my belief that the question posed has indeed a positive answer. My reasoning for this is the following: God is omnipotent - in al aspects - thus his power of creation is equally unlimited. His power of lifting rocks however, should therefore be equally unlimited. But, who is to say God cannot simply alter reality (or our logic) in such a way that he is (1) able to create a rock that even he cannot lift, (2) still lift it? Just because this defies our very language and logic, doesn't mean it isn't possible for God. You might say that it is beyond our comprehension.

You might say that this isn't a real answer, but it is my belief that the powers of a God whose very nature is unknown to us, are equally incomprehensible and thus cannot be described, defined nor limited by questions such as these. At the very best, we can describe what He is NOT; i.e. het NOT mortal, etc.

1. The relationship between Spirit and matter is not one that can be compared, as it is in the original question. Hence, God (i'm assuming we are referring to the God of the bible, as this makes a hugh difference as to what the answer will be) is said to be one; that is, one in spirit, and in this sense is the most simple substance (substance being defined as that which is not dependent upon anything else for it existence). However, a rock can not be one as it is made up of many parts and in this sense is not simple but complex. It is for this reason that the comparison of the two is contradictory, because infinity can only exist within that which is one in nature, indivisible, and a rock cannot fulfill this requirement. For, if the rock was infinite all it parts would have to be also. Now, the logical conclusion is that which is infinite is by nature God, but God has said He is one, not many and, therefore, cannot create that which is himself, the uncreated. Now, if God made an infinite rock, it would be a created God in which all energy, ect. must exist. Alas, it would be that God and the rock are both God.
2. This leads to my next point. The assumption is thus: Thet an infinite God can create anything or do anything. But this is flawed! All things, including God, work according to nature (their own nature, essence) and cannot function against it. Thus, it is impossible for God to create something which is infinte. For, God being one in nature cannot share his glory with another (glory being his attributes); for, he is them, and apart from them he is not. God to remain God must be the sole source of all, which the presence of another infinite, though being impossible as no creation can be infinite in nature, would be the very destruction of his own being.

Iulianus wrote:God is omnipotent - in al aspects - thus his power of creation is equally unlimited. His power of lifting rocks however, should therefore be equally unlimited. But, who is to say God cannot simply alter reality (or our logic) in such a way that he is (1) able to create a rock that even he cannot lift, (2) still lift it? Just because this defies our very language and logic, doesn't mean it isn't possible for God.

First, God is a God of logic, which we being in the image of God also possess. That is like saying that the complacations of math and infinite sets nagates the logic that 1 + 1 = 2. However, it does not. In fact, logic is the very foundation to the answer of the question, and cannot, must not, be defied. Secondly, God's relationship of his being infinite and the imputation of that to creation is not the imparting of his essence to creation, but it is, rather, His sustaining of it, which can and is forever. Thus, God does not join himself to creation, making himself one with it. But, from Him, to Him, and by Him are all things. Thus, from the infinite being of God, he supplies all which is needed to sustian his created order.

God knows all things. To be omnipotent would be to know all things, to have all things in subjection, and so, for God to create something that is equal in power would divest Him of His all-power and therefore He would cease to be God? Right? So how is it that a created being (kinda like the rock), have the power to alter the creation and bring it into subjection to him, I am speaking of that serpent of old. How could he bring man into his army and enable him to serve him rather than the Creator? Something that seems to be great power?

Paulos wrote:So how is it that a created being (kinda like the rock), have the power to alter the creation and bring it into subjection to him, I am speaking of that serpent of old. How could he bring man into his army and enable him to serve him rather than the Creator? Something that seems to be great power?

You have made an assumption, namely, that the works of the serpent were done independentlly of the intent of God. Now, i dont what to go off on something which does not concern the original question, but, as you yourself noted, this is really related. Basically, my response is that the happenings of creation are in fact fully caused and intended by the mind of God. So, for exmple, it is noted that of Christ it is said that before the foundation of the world he was slain. What is intended by this is that the fall happened as a result that another plan had already been made, that Christ should redeem the elect thus showing himself to be God.This, however, relates to the original argument thus: Satan, who is the serpent, was in fact completely subject to the will of God, who had purpossed that the fall should occure; thus, the creature who was thinking that by bring man into subjection to him, was in that very act forever destroyed (how this occured is not for this place, and it shall not be address). But, as is usual with most people trying to be consider the nature of God and things that SEEM to be contrary to the will of God is that the assumption that God can not bring order out disorder is a mistake. But, God functions in such a fashion that he is first infinite and can thus control all things and does. The assumption that this in fact is not true has lead to your question, which is fallacious, begging the question. I hope this has affored some insight, and then lets us continue our discourse.

I think Milton addresses this idea of predestination. In Paradise Lost, God states that though He knew man would fall, he did not plan it or cause it. This decision was made by a free will competent to choose the opposite. The reason Christ was slain before the world was begun was not because of this idea of "felix culpa";rather, it was decided because God realized that man would fall in spite of God's will.

The problem with this view is that you seperate knowledge from will. To be able to truly know something is to be the cause of it. Thus, God's knowing all things is because he is the functional cause of all. To get back to the original question as well, to say that a will exists outside of the power of an all powerful God is a contridiction; he no longer is by terms all powerful just very powerful. This is why for example the the attributes of God are such that the seperation that you have made should not occure nor are the logical.